Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    Quote from THHuxleynew
    • Personally I most distrust the airflow measurements. Getting this wrong by 50% would explain these results. We do not actually know where the air speed was tested. Lack of data here means we cannot check this.
    • I think the middle of tube air speed, air temperature, can easily be determined. Airflow is more difficult because flow velocity profile will be non-uniform, reducing to zero at edges of a pipe and higher in the middle. Mizumo talks I think of checking airflow at different points around the reactor. that does not help, and also does not answer the velocity profile question. This could make the +50% apparent results, if ignored.
    • The other uncertainties seem well bounded by me and although we would need careful and detailed results I feel these are less problematic
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    For about $20 I can buy a mass flow sensor from any modern car with a pulse or voltage output with a total uncertainty of around 1.5% (hot wire/hot film-type). Also, RTD measures a difference in mOhms in order to resolve temperatures, normally I use NTC thermistors coupled to an Agilent 34970A and we can get total uncertainty of temperature measurements to about 13mK when using triple point and gallium cell calibrated thermistors.

    Robert, just like an amplifier circuit, high gains give tendency for more instability than low gain circuits so I agree with what THH wrote.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    just like an amplifier circuit, high gains give tendency for more instability t


    This is not an amplifier circuit! No silicon in it at all. Not room temp.

    It does not output electricity ... it outputs heat.

    This is a nuclear reactor with nickel/palladium mesh

    saturated with deuterium at 300 or more Centigrade.

    This amplifier imagery is a poor reason to agree with anyone,


    Quote from Daniel_G

    For about $20 I can buy a mass flow sensor from any modern car


    I thought we went over this before DG.

    It sounds a good option.

    You still have to calibrate it..

    because it does not sense mass...

    it reads out voltage/current, which is not mass.

    Calibration usually uses an anemometer traverse.

    Correction for the velocity profile is fairly standard procedure,

    but it is tedious.



    The labour time in calibration/correction is probably a bit more than$20

    as any replicators will find regardless of what flow sensor they use.


    The assertion by THH of 50% error is incorrect.

    "This could make the +50% apparent results"

    This is why calibration correction is done.

    In addition this assertion may be based on mistaken calculation/assumption.

    It is really unlikely that a large error, if there is one, is in the calorimetry. Again from Captain Obvious, that's because of the calibrations from resistive (Joule) heating. Because the "COP" and the absolute power out are so large, it is extremely improbable that an error in calorimetry would account for the result and not be caught by calibration. Input power errors are also very improbable because a fully regulated power supply is used and again, any error sufficient to account for the results would be very large. These are reasons I am a fan of calibrations, large output power and large "COP." They render it unnecessary to agonize over fine measurement details. I don't see much point in more examination of air flow or temperature measurement in the calorimeter or related calculations because the calorimeter accounts for known inputs very well and in any case, way more accurately than is needed for this experiment.


    So what else is left? Platinum RTD's can react to electrical noise. But that should affect both reactors as well as calibrations. Is something we're not thinking about very different about the experimental reactor compared to the control one which could account for the spectacular results? I know they are interchanged but is something other than the active mesh or deuterium gas different when a reactor is run? What else could it be?


    So if anyone cares, at this point I am cautiously optimistic but concerned some problem is being missed. It would have to be a whopper though. And if there is a measurement issue, how to account for the larger experiment being able to act as a room heater with less than 300W (IIRC) input power.


    And then, while I do not believe anything is being falsified, sadly, it always has to be ruled out. IIRC, JedRothwell received data from Japan but did not take data himself (please correct me if that is wrong).


    For all these reasons, independent testing by a really good lab would certainly help resolve the issue and again being obvious, it certainly deserves a rapid definitive resolution! Meanwhile, thanks to JedRothwell for bringing these amazing results to the forum. And contrary to the usual suspects' opinions, skeptics will be quite convinced if these results are reliably and credibly duplicated.


    Dewey Weaver : maybe it's time for IH to involve themselves again with Mizuno. Soon,

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Again from Captain Obvious

    It is not obvious to me who you are referring to SOT.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I am cautiously optimistic but concerned some problem is being missed.

    I am cautiously optimistic that the sun may come up tomorrow

    there may be a problem .. but I can't think of it. sadly.:)


    So SOT , you have basically concluded your technical review.

    THHnew has asserted that 64% of the area in the pipe has not been tested.

    This could be the whopper problem

    How so think you? Scary.?

    • Official Post

    Capt Obvious is a funny commercial here in the US. Para also goes by that name over on ECW.


    That said, this is one of the few times SOT and I agree...Jed has done a great job of defending the paper. So far he is winning, and handily. In most cases, his job has been easy, because the answer lies in the very two papers most seem to have not read very carefully. Congrats to SOT for reading not one, buy two references...for once!


    Not over yet though. Really enjoying this, so thank goodness. :)

    Quote

    So SOT , you have basically concluded your technical review.

    THHnew has asserted that 64% of the area in the pipe has not been tested.

    This could be the whopper problem

    How so think you? Scary.?

    A technical review? Hardly. I read most of two of the papers, skimmed the third, and read some but not all of the voluminous comments in the 2017 and current threads. I did not check formulas or math. I paid closest attention to calibrations.


    With due respect to THHuxleynew , I am not concerned with the measurement of temperature in a pipe if that is what you are referring to. Undergraduates often aren't taught the great glory of well done calibration and some learn it on their own and others don't. I learned it the hard way very early on. So I am not concerned with the details of the calorimeter as long as the design and construction are plausible (they are) and calibrations work over the entire range of the measurements. Sure, there are better devices and methods for measuring heat flow but I although I like them, I doubt they are needed here.


    I still think something major could be wrong that this group including me missed. Most things that are too good to be true... you know the rest. But I readily admit I don't know of anything wrong so far. Next step would seem to be as JedRothwell wrote, replication and not refinement of the calorimeter or reactor design.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    1 cm wide band at the inner edge of a 5 cm

    I am basically highlighting the error

    in THH's thinking that it is actually 64%


    But the pipe is not 5 cm diameter it is 7.48 cm.

    Corresponding to the 0.0044 m2 , the same as reported in the 2017 paper

    How can one take readings 3cm from the centre

    in a 5 cm pipe? The diameter is not 5cm at the point of

    the anemometer traverse..


    The anemometer reading will get as close to the wall as possible.

    The anemometer readings are at 0, 1,2 and 3 cm from the centre

    They are not 1 cm from the wall.. they are 0.74 cm from the wall.

    (7.482 -62) /7.482 = 36%.


    This is fatal!!????


    Does this mean that they have not measured 36% of the flow.??

    No not at all..

    By using Reynolds Number you can estimate the outside flowrate

    in the 1.48 cm band with good accuracy.

    The flow calibration results are much better than 10% accuracy.

    How accurately do you think one can

    estimate the velocity in the outside band

    compared to the inside band .(see the blue region

    in the smaller figure).. 1%,2%, 5%?

    Even10% will not produce an error of 900% in the COP 10 results.


    In the end this velocity profile issue and the assertion of 64%

    is based on not reading all the relevant

    information and is flim/flam over nothing.


    Dealing with the 5% inaccuracy in flow measurements

    is no big deal.,,, that is why it is they are dealt with in the next paper

    They deviate from the main finding of the paper,


    Mizuno's results show hundreds of extra watts coming out of the reactor. One thermocouple (or several) would certainly show a significant teperature difference (tens of degrees) between a dummy and a loaded reactor. We are already having long discussions about calorimetry rights and wrongs... The setup I have suggested would confirm anomalous heat without any doubt, if the kind of COP Misuno has achieved is replicated.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    And contrary to the usual suspects' opinions, skeptics will be quite convinced if these results are reliably and credibly duplicated.


    And when the histories are written, those same "skeptics" will claim that they gave Cold Fusion a fair shake all along. That there was no reputation trap. That MIT never fudged data to protect their hot fusion interests. That government funding was always available for basic research in this area. That scientists who dedicated their entire careers to this research were always revered as mavericks. And so forth.



    I was going on the paper, which states the that the piping is 5cm diameter. With therefore a cross-sectional area of 19.6cm^2 (0.00196m2 S.I.).


    page 8:


    An insulated acrylic box is used for airflow calorimetry. It is 400 mm × 750 mm, height 700 mm. During a test, the
    inside of the plastic box is covered with 1.91 m2 of reflective padded aluminum insulation (shanetsu.com, Fig. 7).
    This minimizes losses to radiation. These losses are low in any case, because the cooling air keeps the inside of the
    box at ∼36◦C (16◦C above ambient). Similar insulation from a US vendor (US Energy Products) has an R-value of 11,
    so the insulation radiates ∼3 W (16◦C/11 W/m2 × 1.9 m2
    ). The air inlet and outlets are circular, 50 mm in diameter.
    The inlet is located near the bottom of one side, and the outlet is on the top surface. The outlet is connected to a pipe,
    which makes the airflow more uniform across all parts of the cross section of the outlet, to increase the accuracy of the
    airflow measurement. The power to the blower is continuously monitored


    If it is actually more than this then the data shown for constant wind velocity would cover a larger amount of the total cross-section, and my comments might change. I am however a bit concerned

    now about this inconsistency: what are the exact reactor pipe dimensions?


    Jed? And has it stayed the same through all these experiments (as I believe it has?).


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I was going on the paper, which states the that the piping is 5cm diameter

    So the two 3cm from centre opposite readings must have been taken outside the pipe???


    The piping may be 5cm approximately

    but the section where the anemometer traversed must be greater than 6cm.


    you should have looked closely at the figure shown above

    Then you would have noticed that your assumption of

    5cm at that place was wrong..


    0.74 cm from the wall makes more sense than 1.0 cm


    The 0.0044m2 is from 2017

    Jed said not much was changed in the setup.

    You can check with him.


    RB - your figure 4 from the above post shows the profile for Re = 428,000. Some 50X larger (more turbulent) than the 10,000 we have here. If you go back to my post you will see that the average/max velocity ration gets closer to 1.0 as Re increases, as you would expect.


    You will find a useful reference linked from my post? Or you can find one yourself - a bit of googling is needed. Took me about 60 minutes to check it out (the flow stuff is pretty horrible, with little in the way of analytic solution but lots of analytic approximate solutions).


    I don't understand your rhetorical question "this is fatal??".


    I have commented any number of times on how the 80% issue (assuming it does not depend on temperature and wind velocity significantly, something I am still not certain about, but my best estimates written in the main quantitative post referencing stuff say it does not), is not fatal. But it needs to be taken into account so that a completely consistent view of this data can be developed. Sometimes errors, like icebergs, can be seen only as little things with a larger matter hidden.


    It would help if those looking at all these numbers thought of it in terms of an interesting puzzle to be put together, cross-checking everything so that all is crystal clear, rather than a "yes/no" answer.


    Also worth noting that if reports like this deserve publication, certainly all these little things should be clarified and checked before that. Look at how careful most others (e.g. FTL neutrino experiment) are to check all details and cross-check where possible before publishing results which they know if believed would be a major scientific discovery. You will also remember the regret that F&P results were prematurely released.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    your figure 4 from the above post shows the profile for Re = 428,000


    That's not my figure

    that;s from a recent arxiv post.

    It was the nearest thing in 10 profiles.


    IF you can come up with a profile for 4m/s average velocity

    in a 7.48 cm pipe, air at 30C Great!

    please reference it.


    the arxiv figure is indicative that the velocity profile in the edge strip

    is accurately predictable using the

    seven anemometer readings in the inner region.

    it doesn't really matter what the profile shape is.


    My understanding (confirmed at time by Jed) was that the figures given are measured from one edge of the tube, and therefore all fit into 5cm. It is indeed a lack (which I noted earlier without being mean about it) that these figures do not make the base point clear and can thus be interpreted in different ways. Such things can always be tightened up and peer review helps that to happen: if the reviewers are conscientious enough!


    I agree that the discrepancy between 0.0044m2 and 50mm is definite, and therefore they cannot both be correct. 50mm comes from the earlier of the two (later than 2017 I think) papers linked at the start of this thread. Perhaps Jed can resolve the matter.


    This is an example of what I have said above. Much better that these papers be self-contained with all relevant details contained in one paper, otherwise there be confusion about what has, and what has not, changed.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    My understanding (confirmed at time by Jed)

    Your understanding appears wrong.. otherwise the two 3cm anemometer readings are taken

    outside the 5 cm pipe.

    You need to check your understanding with Jed.

    1cm away from the wall is too much for a small pipe

    for a small pipe we used a mini pitot tube back in the days to get closer.

    Jed may have approximated the 0.74 cm to 1 cm in communicating with you,


    It may be that the traverse section is wider to make the measurements more accurate.


    You have a claimed that this causes 50 % error in the flow measurements.


    Can you show calculations/ profile etc that substantiate this claim?

    THHuxleynew wrote:

    I think you have this backward. I don't need to explain anything - because I'm making no claims


    You actually do make claims

    You claim that higher COPS mean the reactor IS unstable.


    You have based that on an assumption of linear dependence.

    I have read your post


    "Let us take a simple example of F(T) = CT (linear)"


    "I don't need to explain anything"

    You need to explain how you can come to the conclusion of instability

    without any knowledge of the temperature dependence

    of the reactions at the atomic level.


    Mizuno's 2017 work indicated a reaction temperature dependence

    which is not linear.


    " The reaction activation energy Ea was calculated on the basis of the linear region

    between 100 and 523◦Cin Fig. 40 to be 0.165 eV/K/atom"


    In addition Mizuno appears to test run the higher COP's for hours, days

    without signs of instability

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.